HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2012, 06:04 PM
  #276
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis View Post
If the season started in January, and we ended up winning the cup, it wouldn't feel sufficient. I would rather lose an entire season than play a half assed 35-40 game season. **** that.

Either we start games on October 12, or this league can go **** itself.
Who cares? We'd win the cup. I don't care as long as we win.

Kershaw is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:06 PM
  #277
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 8,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Who cares? We'd win the cup. I don't care as long as we win.
It's not anywhere near the same as playing a full 82 game schedule. It just isn't.

nevesis is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:08 PM
  #278
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis View Post
It's not anywhere near the same as playing a full 82 game schedule. It just isn't.
To you, not to me. Winning the cup is how you perform in the playoffs. The regular season is just a means to get there.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:08 PM
  #279
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,264
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis View Post
It's not anywhere near the same as playing a full 82 game schedule. It just isn't.
So then why do people care about most of Montreal's Stanley Cups? There used to be a 44-game schedule.

Also, I believe there used to be a 20-game schedule even before that.

I doubt Devil fan or anyone else besides those homer Ranger fans cares about their "half Cup" in 1995.

__________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<
-]>++++++.>+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++++++.<-.
>-------.<<-----.>----.>.<<+++++++++++.>-------------
-.+++++++++++++.-------.--.+++++++++++++.+.>+.>.

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." -31-
Screw You Rick Nash is online now  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:12 PM
  #280
jstaal
go canes go
 
jstaal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: mass
Country: United States
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
well

Quote:
Originally Posted by jskramer83 View Post
Pretty strong statement here from someone who know's nothing about me. Pretty ignorant one too, being that we have been able to start some pretty successful events, and helpful programs on this board.

See Vinnie Auricchio's Baby shower list after the incident in the winter classic. I just don't understand why you have to give your two cents, since obviously you don't care to do anything which is fine. If your goal is to prove that you are smarter then me, fine you got it so you can stop now. Especially if your not going to add anything except trying to be heard.
Ya never know if people are kidding or busting cookies... ya just dont know..

jstaal is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:23 PM
  #281
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
Point the finger you want all at Bettman, but you need to understand that the players are at fault here also.

Everyone is at fault, so all the hate being towards Bettman and the Owners is a little outrageous, and really only proves that the NHL needs a new PR department.

Hey NHL, I'm available
what are the players at fault for? not immediately dropping their pants and grabbing their ankles?

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:24 PM
  #282
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,268
vCash: 500
if we win the cup, i could careless how it happens...

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:25 PM
  #283
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
what are the players at fault for? not immediately dropping their pants and grabbing their ankles?
No, but if you actually look at their proposal, its a bit of a smokescreen in someways. I still think the idea of the flat cap is something that can be developed. But the players are going to have to take some sort of cut(rollback)in salaries. The initial proposal didn't even address it.

Also there were some downright asinine points dealing with Non player salaries, and extra draft picks. It certainly wasn't perfect.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:27 PM
  #284
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis View Post
If the season started in January, and we ended up winning the cup, it wouldn't feel sufficient. I would rather lose an entire season than play a half assed 35-40 game season. **** that.

Either we start games on October 12, or this league can go **** itself.
Thats the dumbest thing I've seen in this thread.

And thats saying a lot considering this thread is filled with hockey fans attempting to discuss complex collective bargaining for a multi-billion dollar entity.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:32 PM
  #285
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Believer View Post
No, but if you actually look at their proposal, its a bit of a smokescreen in someways. I still think the idea of the flat cap is something that can be developed. But the players are going to have to take some sort of cut(rollback)in salaries. The initial proposal didn't even address it.

Also there were some downright asinine points dealing with Non player salaries, and extra draft picks. It certainly wasn't perfect.
to say that the players NEED to take a rollback is a completely ridiculous assumption. its 110% the owners fault that the players make what they make. don fehr didn't give zach parise and ryan suter $200 mil. suggesting they must take a rollback is suggesting that they should just grab their ankles AGAIN and just take whatever gary will give them

fehr was spot on when he said that there is only such a big gap because of how unrealistic the owners proposal was. they want to rollback salaries to 2004 levels and thats fair?

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:37 PM
  #286
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
to say that the players NEED to take a rollback is a completely ridiculous assumption. its 110% the owners fault that the players make what they make. don fehr didn't give zach parise and ryan suter $200 mil. suggesting they must take a rollback is suggesting that they should just grab their ankles AGAIN and just take whatever gary will give them

fehr was spot on when he said that there is only such a big gap because of how unrealistic the owners proposal was. they want to rollback salaries to 2004 levels and thats fair?
Did I say that? I said they should probably take some sort of rollback. Like 5-8 percent. That wouldn't be unreasonable. Considering that current player spending is unreasonable right now for the owners. What good does potential profit serve them? Which is also not guaranteed but projected.

I don't think the players deserve to have 25 percent taken away out of their salaries. Thats crazy. But taking some reduction combined with a flat cap could be a compromise for both sides.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 06:38 PM
  #287
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,268
vCash: 500
i also think that fehr is spot on when he points out that last time the league got the system that THEY wanted and now they are claiming that that system doesn't work. but there solution is to take basically the same system that doesn't work, lower the numbers and hope it works...

the players approach is different but if the current system doesn't work maybe you need to change or modify that system...and its not like the players are suggesting getting rid of the cap

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 07:59 PM
  #288
silverfish
Mr. Glass
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 14,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
what are the players at fault for? not immediately dropping their pants and grabbing their ankles?
  • Waiting a month to come to the NHL with their terms
  • Proposing a CBA that includes controlled spending on "non-player expenses"
  • Proposing a salary cap that increases to $78 million in year 3 of the new CBA, a number in which the NHL cannot operate at
  • Not proposing any changes to contract negotiations, which are at an all time disgrace level for the NHL...of course, this is the owner's fault, but it needs to be addressed and changed

These are just a few, and it's just my opinion, but both parties are absolutely at fault.

silverfish is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 08:39 PM
  #289
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
  • Waiting a month to come to the NHL with their terms
Because they took the time to put together a thought out response to the NHL's absurd proposal this is their fault?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
  • Proposing a CBA that includes controlled spending on "non-player expenses"
What's wrong with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
  • Proposing a salary cap that increases to $78 million in year 3 of the new CBA, a number in which the NHL cannot operate at
Says who? They're already artificially keeping their salaries down by untying it from revenue. Why shouldn't the cap continue to increase as the league makes more and more money?

This whole thing about the league not being able to operate in the current situation is garbage. The owners just saw the NBA and NFL owners make their cash grab so now they want theirs too. Real structural problems can only be fixed by revenue sharing, which is what the players are proposing. As Rangerboy has pointed out, Bettman is disingenuously leaving out that revenue sharing was a major part of the new NBA CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
  • Not proposing any changes to contract negotiations, which are at an all time disgrace level for the NHL...of course, this is the owner's fault, but it needs to be addressed and changed
Once again this is a problem only in that the owners don't want to pay, not that they can't pay. There's no reason for the players to make concessions on this front, especially not until the owners make some of their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
These are just a few, and it's just my opinion, but both parties are absolutely at fault.
The players are not at fault. This comes down to the fact that the owners don't want to take the union seriously. For the first time the players have a real union leader in Fehr. He's presenting a united front and isn't going to just back down. The owners don't want to acknowledge that.

The owners got everything they wanted in the last CBA, claiming it had to be done to fix the league. Now they're claiming the league's broken. The owners don't really want a fair deal or a better system. This is just a cash grab, plain and simple.

Zil is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 08:52 PM
  #290
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post

What's wrong with that?(non player salary cap)
There is quite a bit wrong with it. First and foremost, travel expenses. Western conference teams are obviously going to have higher expenses in that department. Why should they be punished for it?

Then you have trainer salaries which can fluctuate in different markets dramatically. Not to mention, overhead, leases(which vary enormously for each franchise) etc etc.

MSG just spent billions in trying to renovate. Does that count as Non-player expenses? So franchises are going to have to limit how they run facilities. Facilities that players benefit from and don't have to spend a dime to support?

Yeah, there is massive problems with it, and its never going to fly. Especially if the new CBA requires bigger markets to take more of the burden in revenue sharing.


Last edited by Blueshirt Believer: 08-15-2012 at 09:03 PM.
Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 09:07 PM
  #291
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,753
vCash: 500
Awards:
People are making way too much of an issue of the NHLPA taking a month to respond. That's so typical of contract negotiations. Things are usually accomplished during the eleventh hour. Both parties will take their sweet ass time and posture endlessly until you actually get down to crunch time.

nyr2k2 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 09:15 PM
  #292
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,753
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Believer View Post
There is quite a bit wrong with it. First and foremost, travel expenses. Western conference teams are obviously going to have higher expenses in that department. Why should they be punished for it?

Then you have trainer salaries which can fluctuate in different markets dramatically. Not to mention, overhead, leases(which vary enormously for each franchise) etc etc.

MSG just spent billions in trying to renovate. Does that count as Non-player expenses? So franchises are going to have to limit how they run facilities. Facilities that players benefit from and don't have to spend a dime to support?

Yeah, there is massive problems with it, and its never going to fly. Especially if the new CBA requires bigger markets to take more of the burden in revenue sharing.
Has anyone seen any details on the NHLPA proposal regarding limiting non-player expenditures, or are we all just speculating? I'm guessing the latter.

That MSG hypothetical you proffered is silly on a number of levels.

I think it's safe to assume that this "limit" is a safeguard against owners pocketing revenue sharing dollars. The NHLPA wants more revenue sharing, but also want to make sure that redistributed revenue is invested in the on-ice product. It is/was an issue in baseball, where teams were receiving large amounts of revenue sharing money but keeping payrolls extremely low. Padding their bottom line rather than attempting to produce a better product. Fehr has seen this firsthand. Revenue sharing does the NHLPA no good if the owners won't spend the money on the players.

We don't know if it's a hard number, or something proportional. You could establish a system wherein a team must devote a certain percentage of their operating budget to player expenses. 40/60 or something. Maybe the team is disqualified from receiving revenue sharing if they don't hit that threshold. Just an idea. We have no idea how the Players Association structured their proposal. Plenty of reasonable scenarios though.

Of course, I'm assuming as well, though based on past history and personal experience. I'll wait to learn more details before criticizing this aspect of the deal.

__________________

It's just pain.

Last edited by nyr2k2: 08-15-2012 at 09:34 PM.
nyr2k2 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 09:15 PM
  #293
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
My guess is that two sides will have to agree with this:

1)Player salary reduction between 5-7 percent. Cap would decrease to probably about 65-66.

2)Flat cap implementation. With about three percent increase over every three years.

3)Increased revenue sharing. That may include a new sharing method.

4)Slight limits on contracts.

Probably a few more things.

Not to mention, they will probably want the new CBA to last, at least, six years.


Last edited by Blueshirt Believer: 08-15-2012 at 09:36 PM.
Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 09:21 PM
  #294
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Has anyone seen any details on the NHLPA proposal regarding limiting non-player expenditures, or are we all just speculating? I'm guessing the latter.

That MSG hypothetical you proffered is silly on a number of levels.
Ok, so lets say arena renovations or facility upkeep isn't apart of non-player spending. We don't know this for sure, but lets speculate.

Well it will include travel expense, marketing, scouting, trainers, coaches, front office. All of those things are going to vary GREATLY based on location. A trainer living in Columbus ohio is not going to make the same as someone living in NYC. Nor should they.


Last edited by Blueshirt Believer: 08-15-2012 at 09:29 PM.
Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 09:39 PM
  #295
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
I think it's safe to assume that this "limit" is a safeguard against owners pocketing revenue sharing dollars. The NHLPA wants more revenue sharing, but also want to make sure that redistributed revenue is invested in the on-ice product. It is/was an issue in baseball, where teams were receiving large amounts of revenue sharing money but keeping payrolls extremely low. Padding their bottom line rather than attempting to produce a better product. Fehr has seen this firsthand. Revenue sharing does the NHLPA no good if the owners won't spend the money on the players.
But MLB is a luxury tax system with no cap floor. I don't see the correlation with that to what the NHLPA proposed.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 09:50 PM
  #296
Grumpy Humphrey
Registered User
 
Grumpy Humphrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,412
vCash: 50
Bettman says the players will break any minute, purple monkey dishwasher

Grumpy Humphrey is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:02 PM
  #297
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billionaire Bot View Post
Bettman says the players will break any minute, purple monkey dishwasher
Rubber baby buggy bumpers.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:25 PM
  #298
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,753
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Believer View Post
But MLB is a luxury tax system with no cap floor. I don't see the correlation with that to what the NHLPA proposed.
The cap floor mitigates a team's ability to pocket revenue sharing cash rather than investing it on payroll, but it far from eliminates the possibility.

Can you tell me what exactly the NHLPA proposed?

nyr2k2 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:40 PM
  #299
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
The cap floor mitigates a team's ability to pocket revenue sharing cash rather than investing it on payroll, but it far from eliminates the possibility.

Can you tell me what exactly the NHLPA proposed?
Considering I don't have the document in front of me, no. But what pieces I have read from journalists non-player spending includes travel expenses, marketing, front office, coaches, trainers etc.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:42 PM
  #300
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,753
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Believer View Post
Considering I don't have the document in front of me, no. But what pieces I have read from journalists non-player spending includes travel expenses, marketing, front office, coaches, trainers etc.
Where did you read that? All I saw was one tweet saying that the NHLPA proposed some sort of cap, followed by a few posters speculating as to what that would include. If I missed something legitimate, please point me to it.

nyr2k2 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.